Re: [foaf-protocols] replacing email with atom and foaf+ssl

On 3 May 2010, at 22:02, Nathan wrote: >>> >>> All in all: >>> Sounds feasible and pretty much fully spec'd if going down the atompub >>> route, perhaps linked data + sparql/sparul/pubsubhubbub is the long term >>> route but I'm quite sure it would take a bit more work to both implement >>> and

Re: [foaf-protocols] replacing email with atom and foaf+ssl

Story Henry wrote: > On 3 May 2010, at 21:22, Nathan wrote: > >> Story Henry wrote: >>> [snip >>> 2. The Solution >>> --- >>> >>> 2.1 RESTful Identity and Authentication >>> --- >>> >>> foaf+ssl gives us WebIds, global identifiers tied to a public k

Re: [foaf-protocols] replacing email with atom and foaf+ssl

On 3 May 2010, at 21:22, Nathan wrote: > Story Henry wrote: >> [snip >> 2. The Solution >> --- >> >> 2.1 RESTful Identity and Authentication >> --- >> >> foaf+ssl gives us WebIds, global identifiers tied to a public key, which >> allows >> one c

Semantic Elephants: Versioning, URIs, UniqueIds, owl:sameAs, Managing Coreference

All, I analyzed some past threads and teased out and summarized three distinct modeling issues. 1. Overloading OWL sameAs: sameAs is being used in the linked data community in a way that is inconsistent with its sem

Re: [foaf-protocols] replacing email with atom and foaf+ssl

Story Henry wrote: > In the early days of Atom, people were speaking of using it to replace > e-mail. > This is in fact easy to do, we just need to try it out. > > 1. The problem. > --- > > Before explaining the solution, it is important to understand the problem. > Currently Atom

replacing email with atom and foaf+ssl

In the early days of Atom, people were speaking of using it to replace e-mail. This is in fact easy to do, we just need to try it out. 1. The problem. --- Before explaining the solution, it is important to understand the problem. Currently Atom works like a public mailing list: ever

Re: rdf/json

Perhaps this has already been suggested, but the linked-data-api folks have an overview of json serializations for rdf [1] that might be of some interest. //Ed [1] http://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/wiki/JSONFormats

Re: rdf/json

Davide Palmisano wrote: > On 5/3/10 6:25 PM, Nathan wrote: >> All, >> > Hi Nathan, >> Is there an RDF+JSON serialization of RDF, I see mention by Openlink, >> Talis, RDFQuery etc but not much else. >> >> Primarily, is there a spec? a working group? any work being done to >> standardise? >>

Re: rdf/json

The spec is here: http://n2.talis.com/wiki/RDF_JSON_Specification But I don't know about your other questions. -Ross. On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Nathan wrote: > All, > > Is there an RDF+JSON serialization of RDF, I see mention by Openlink, > Talis, RDFQuery etc but not much else. > > Pri

rdf/json

All, Is there an RDF+JSON serialization of RDF, I see mention by Openlink, Talis, RDFQuery etc but not much else. Primarily, is there a spec? a working group? any work being done to standardise? Increasingly more convinced that rdf+json will be mission critical very soon, hence the question. Be

Re: GoodRelations vs. Google RDFa vs. Open Graph vs. hProduct/hListing: Using GoodRelations in 10 Triples

FYI - This may also be of interest for anybody of you working on linked data for e-commerce. Best Martin Hepp Original Message Subject: More examples of modeling price information with GoodRelations Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 17:47:48 +0200 From: Martin Hepp (UniBW)

Re: GoodRelations vs. Google RDFa vs. Open Graph vs. hProduct/hListing: Using GoodRelations in 10 Triples

Hi Henry, Thanks for your feedback! >I wonder if the following could make it even simpler though: First I think, why not make the currency a literal? foo:offering a gr:Offering; rdfs:label "Volkswagen Station Wagon, 4WD, 400 $"@en; rdfs:description "I sell my old Volkswagen Station Wago

Re: GoodRelations vs. Google RDFa vs. Open Graph vs. hProduct/hListing: Using GoodRelations in 10 Triples

On 3 May 2010, at 09:38, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Dear all: > > Some people think that the GoodRelations ontology for e-commerce > (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) is powerful, but complex. > [snip] > Turtle/N3: > = > @prefix foo: . > @prefix gr:

Re: GoodRelations vs. Google RDFa vs. Open Graph vs. hProduct/hListing: Using GoodRelations in 10 Triples

Apologies - There were a few minor bugs in the initial markup: - I forgot the business function. - The datatype for the price was xsd:string instead of xsd:float. - The legal name had no language tag. The correct examples are at http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/2010-May/000215.

GoodRelations vs. Google RDFa vs. Open Graph vs. hProduct/hListing: Using GoodRelations in 10 Triples

Dear all: Some people think that the GoodRelations ontology for e-commerce (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) is powerful, but complex. I think it is important for everybody in the community to know that GoodRelations can be as simple (or simpler) than any more lightweight approach for product m